Why did we abandon hydrogen cars so quickly?

[x4it3n]

Hydrogen is too expensive and still dangerous. Cold fusion is the best technology we have as of now, it's a clean energy but the lobbyists are pushing for gas because the gas industry brings too much money. The reality is that our society is doomed because of selfish and greedy people...

 

[ty_ger]

Hydrogen is too expensive and still dangerous.

And 95% of it comes from fossil fuel, and overall efficiency of using that fossil fuel is less than using it directly in a gasoline engine, so it is completely pointless.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Cold fusion

But... how cold? Yes I remember the fraud from pons and fleischmann. Do you remember that?

 

[mb194dc]

And 95% of it comes from fossil fuel, and overall efficiency of using that fossil fuel is less than using it directly in a gasoline engine, so it is completely pointless.

Isn't electricity powering BEV also made from fossil fuel power stations? What's the difference between making hydrogen with grid electricity and powering a car with it ?

Also worth noting there's nothing stopping hydrogen being produced using off peak green energy, especially for things like wind. Given there's no way to store it as of now. Plus natural hydrogen exploration is only just getting started.

BEVs sales are in big trouble and outright cratering in the Europe. Amazing to me people are pushing this technology when consumers just aren't interested much and for good reason. (Similar for a lot of other tech now as well like Consumer LLMs)

 

[x4it3n]

But... how cold? Yes I remember the fraud from pons and fleischmann. Do you remember that?

Check online there are plenty of topics talking about it!

Both Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos hugely believe in it, its technology is improving quickly and is a much better solution than lithium batteries for our environment.

Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos-backed fusion energy pioneer claims 'pivotal moment'

MIT and spin-out Commonwealth Fusion Systems say validation of 2021 magnet test is big step to commercialising 'holy grail' energy tech

www.rechargenews.com

 

[ty_ger]

Isn't electricity powering BEV also made from fossil fuel power stations? What's the difference between making hydrogen with grid electricity and powering a car with it ?

Similar concerns, sure, but at least the efficiency difference is positive and the infrastructure isn't so absent.

Hydrogen is the same problem, except you use more fossil fuel instead of less fossil fuel and you don't have many options to 'recharge'. There is no existing hydrogen grid to utilize. Building the missing infrastructure requires more carbon demand. You don't build a hydrogen infrastructure in order to create a less efficient way to consume fossil fuel, unless your goals are money in opposition of the stated goals.

There is no natural hydrogen to gather and collect. It is too reactive.

The only way to efficiently use off-peak green hydrogen is to use it as off-peak storage tied to the grid directly. Make hydrogen fuel cells which consume electricity when the grid is in excess and consume hydrogen when the grid needs power. Do that with all the excess green power first. Then, when you have nothing better to do, waste your time with hydrogen cars. Make it stationary, efficient, and effective first. Similar reason as to why solar panels are on houses, not on cars. You do the thing that's most efficient and makes sense first. Then waste your time on investor-funded toys afterward. You don't do the less efficient thing first, especially when it is less harmful to do nothing at all.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Check online there are plenty of topics talking about it!

Both Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos hugely believe in it, its technology is improving quickly and is a much better solution than lithium batteries for our environment.

Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos-backed fusion energy pioneer claims 'pivotal moment'

MIT and spin-out Commonwealth Fusion Systems say validation of 2021 magnet test is big step to commercialising 'holy grail' energy tech

www.rechargenews.com

This is nothing that it cold in process of fusion. The coils of the electromagnets and the walls of the reactor are cooled. This is no reason to call it "cold fusion".

 

[x4it3n]

This is nothing that it cold in process of fusion. The coils of the electromagnets and the walls of the reactor are cooled. This is no reason to call it "cold fusion".

My bad I checked and it's actually Nuclear Fission and Fusion that Bill Gates is investing on

Bill Gates Is Betting on Nuclear Fission and Fusion to Solve the Climate Crisis

The Microsoft co-founder has invested in at least five nuclear fusion companies.

observer.com

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Sounds like converting from gasoline to hydrogen means 30% of the range for equal power, roughly:

700 psi just isn't dense enough.

 

[ty_ger]

Sounds like converting from gasoline to hydrogen means 30% of the range for equal power, roughly:

700 psi just isn't dense enough.

And it is completely irrelevant (or worse) to the goal of ditching fossil fuels.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Green and purple/pink are environmentally friendly and should contribute to lessening demand for carbon. Blue and turquoise are cleaner than straight up burning fossil fuels but still rely on fossil fuels:

In theory, pink hydrogen could be very, very cheap because the higher the temperature (waste coming off the core), the easier it is to split the atoms with electrolysis. I'm hoping if nuclear energy takes off again, we could see gen 4 or 5 reactors with pink hydrogen as primary purpose.

The main hurdle is the storage of hydrogen in an affordable, safe medium. The tanks in that boat are very large and very expensive.

 

[Aquinus]

In theory, pink hydrogen could be very, very cheap because the higher the temperature (waste coming off the core), the easier it is to split the atoms with electrolysis. I'm hoping if nuclear energy takes off again, we could see gen 4 or 5 reactors with pink hydrogen as primary purpose.

+1 for nuclear power. I think people underestimate the power and sustainability of modern nuclear power and overestimate the risks associated with early nuclear reactors like the Soviet RBMK design. The main issue with nuclear power is the high capital costs to get going, so you end up spending a ton of money and time before you even start seeing a return, forget breaking even. With that said though, I still think that nuclear power is the future. While capital costs are high, fuel costs are incredibly low in comparison to other fueled power stations and can see far larger returns in the long term.

Hydrogen production would be a nice side-effect from a modern nuclear plant. Waste heat as you mentioned helps make the electrolysis process more efficient and excess power generation can be used to do the electrolysis itself. A big issue is that nobody seems to want a nuclear power station in their backyard because of the stigma of prior events like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yes, modern reactors can't fail like these did, but it's hard to change minds.

 

[DOA]

Isn't electricity powering BEV also made from fossil fuel power stations? What's the difference between making hydrogen with grid electricity and powering a car with it ?

Also worth noting there's nothing stopping hydrogen being produced using off peak green energy, especially for things like wind. Given there's no way to store it as of now. Plus natural hydrogen exploration is only just getting started.

BEVs sales are in big trouble and outright cratering in the Europe. Amazing to me people are pushing this technology when consumers just aren't interested much and for good reason. (Similar for a lot of other tech now as well like Consumer LLMs)

The efficiency difference between solar/wind electrical generation to miles in a BEV vs a FCV is staggering. Even with off peak green energy (when most home charging is done) hydrogen fails to be cost effective for transportation.

And BEVs are selling like mad. They are a better solution with a lot of FUD from legacy industries.

Battery-electric vehicle sales worldwide | Statista

Battery-electric vehicle sales reached an estimated 10 million in 2023, up from around 7.7 million in 2022.

www.statista.com

 

[KLiKzg]

The efficiency difference between solar/wind electrical generation to miles in a BEV vs a FCV is staggering. Even with off peak green energy (when most home charging is done) hydrogen fails to be cost effective for transportation.

And BEVs are selling like mad. They are a better solution with a lot of FUD from legacy industries.

Battery-electric vehicle sales worldwide | Statista

Battery-electric vehicle sales reached an estimated 10 million in 2023, up from around 7.7 million in 2022.

www.statista.com

No, BEVs are not selling as mad. As a matter of fact, trend is slowing down for BEVs! But you see that from your graph, if you know how to analyze it?!

 

[AusWolf]

No, BEVs are not selling as mad. As a matter of fact, trend is slowing down for BEVs! But you see that from your graph, if you know how to analyze it?!

BEVs are a fad, and continue to be as long as
1. Home charging isn't a feasible option for everyone,
2. Range is less than the petrol/diesel equivalent,
3. Charging times and infrastructure make road trips impossible,
4. The weight of the battery prevents it from being used in small runabouts,
5. Batteries require costly replacement every X years, and most importantly...
6. They cost an arm and leg with some insane year-per-year depreciation in value.

 

[DOA]

BEVs are a fad, and continue to be as long as
1. Home charging isn't a feasible option for everyone,
2. Range is less than the petrol/diesel equivalent,
3. Charging times and infrastructure make road trips impossible,
4. The weight of the battery prevents it from being used in small runabouts,
5. Batteries require costly replacement every X years, and most importantly...
6. They cost an arm and leg with some insane year-per-year depreciation in value.

Exactly which is why I waited until 2017 to buy one. Same time my neighbor bought his AMG S65. AMG was a bit more money, quieter, slower and more plush. He averages 15 MPG, I charge at home mostly with two cross country trips averaging $25 a charge. Never a problem finding a charger and the car even tells me what chargers are busy, unlike his gas station roulette. Yes, It takes me 30 - 45 minutes to charge, but no time lost since we charge where we do other things, unlike his 10 minute loss every fill up. Battery replacement is looking like $8K at 250K miles in a few years, much cheaper than his ICE. Depreciation is also much greater on his AMG. The most telling thing is he has very low mileage on his AMG and drives his Prius to work while I have two around the country trips and 160K miles on mine. I won't go into his horrendous maintenance costs compared to my one headlight under warranty.

BEVs are the future, just a matter of education. Granted, not for all applications, just 90%.

 

[the54thvoid]

BEVs are a fad, and continue to be as long as
1. Home charging isn't a feasible option for everyone,
2. Range is less than the petrol/diesel equivalent,
3. Charging times and infrastructure make road trips impossible,
4. The weight of the battery prevents it from being used in small runabouts,
5. Batteries require costly replacement every X years, and most importantly...
6. They cost an arm and leg with some insane year-per-year depreciation in value.

Fad? Tell that to the guy that owns Tesla. Like him or loathe him, his inexplicable wealth is tied to his EV company.

Regardless, this thread is about hydrogen. Stay on topic please.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

BEVs are a fad, and continue to be as long as
1. Home charging isn't a feasible option for everyone,
2. Range is less than the petrol/diesel equivalent,
3. Charging times and infrastructure make road trips impossible,
4. The weight of the battery prevents it from being used in small runabouts,
5. Batteries require costly replacement every X years, and most importantly...
6. They cost an arm and leg with some insane year-per-year depreciation in value.

So how does FCV fulfill/eliminate the above issues?
1. I agree Biggest issue of BEV adoption for "Everyone" as not everyone has easy access to at home/overnight charging. Have a colleague who has been sent a sternly worded letter from his council for trying to charge his hybrid when using a protective cable cover and he obviously wasnt even leaving it in overnight. Asked for a solution/suggestion from the council and complete Radio silence ¬_¬ Good Luck Starmer with the 2030 target working out!!!
2. Sure but how many people are doing 300 miles in a single journey, and of these even how many are going to do that in one stint and not stop off during the trip where the could top up.
3. See my point above. Fast charging on modern BEVs means as long as you can get into a decent charger, by the time you have gone into a services, gone to the loo, had a snack/drink/stretch your legs you have already gotten back ~33% of your range? Sit around for another 10- 15 minutes and you are well on your way to recovering 50%
4. What do you determine as a small run about? Nissan Leaf is a fairly decent offering in that sort of category and has more than enough range for most people.
5. I think this falls under the same issues with engines in cars. If they do go wrong.....whooo boi, but there seems to be more and more understanding coming out about repairing/refreshing battery packs with issues.
6. TBH thats all cars not just BEVs that are becoming insanely expensive. Just built a F150 Platinum and an equivalent Lightning model and they are basically the same price but the BEV comes with $7k worth of incentives that actually makes the EV version cheaper......Good Lord..........

FCVs will "solve" Point 1, Points 2,3,4,5 and 6 are still going to be issues with FCVs

2. Toyota Mirai (FCV) has ~400 mile range to a tank, so barely more than an "equivalent" BEV and considerably shorter than a ICE powered vehicle "A full tank of hydrogen for the Hyundai Nexo can cost up to £100. The Nexo consumes 0.95 kilograms of hydrogen per 100 kilometers, so a 62-mile journey costs around £11.40"
3. We have all gone on about storage and generation of sufficent quantities of Hydrogen being the real roadblock for adoption
4. Weight isnt the issue but the volume of the tank/tanks is quite intruisive so it works in larger cars, especially where you can utilise a large center console to store one of the tanks but small cars ala Honda Jazz, Nissan Leaf etc are going to be really limited in range.
5. The actual Fuel Cell has degredation aspects to consider, whats the cost to replace one of them I wonder. I cant imagine it will be cheap
6. Thats just all new cars in general currently.

 

[AusWolf]

Fad? Tell that to the guy that owns Tesla. Like him or loathe him, his inexplicable wealth is tied to his EV company.

It's easy to get rich off a fad. Just look at the AI boom, crypto, or any of the fad diets... Or even Coca-Cola. I don't get how that sugary window cleaner with 0% natural flavour got popular.

Regardless, this thread is about hydrogen. Stay on topic please.

Roger. I'm moving on.

So how does FCV fulfill/eliminate the above issues?
1. I agree Biggest issue of BEV adoption for "Everyone" as not everyone has easy access to at home/overnight charging. Have a colleague who has been sent a sternly worded letter from his council for trying to charge his hybrid when using a protective cable cover and he obviously wasnt even leaving it in overnight. Asked for a solution/suggestion from the council and complete Radio silence ¬_¬ Good Luck Starmer with the 2030 target working out!!!
2. Sure but how many people are doing 300 miles in a single journey, and of these even how many are going to do that in one stint and not stop off during the trip where the could top up.
3. See my point above. Fast charging on modern BEVs means as long as you can get into a decent charger, by the time you have gone into a services, gone to the loo, had a snack/drink/stretch your legs you have already gotten back ~33% of your range? Sit around for another 10- 15 minutes and you are well on your way to recovering 50%
4. What do you determine as a small run about? Nissan Leaf is a fairly decent offering in that sort of category and has more than enough range for most people.
5. I think this falls under the same issues with engines in cars. If they do go wrong.....whooo boi, but there seems to be more and more understanding coming out about repairing/refreshing battery packs with issues.
6. TBH thats all cars not just BEVs that are becoming insanely expensive. Just built a F150 Platinum and an equivalent Lightning model and they are basically the same price but the BEV comes with $7k worth of incentives that actually makes the EV version cheaper......Good Lord..........

FCVs will "solve" Point 1, Points 2,3,4,5 and 6 are still going to be issues with FCVs

2. Toyota Mirai (FCV) has ~400 mile range to a tank, so barely more than an "equivalent" BEV and considerably shorter than a ICE powered vehicle "A full tank of hydrogen for the Hyundai Nexo can cost up to £100. The Nexo consumes 0.95 kilograms of hydrogen per 100 kilometers, so a 62-mile journey costs around £11.40"
3. We have all gone on about storage and generation of sufficent quantities of Hydrogen being the real roadblock for adoption
4. Weight isnt the issue but the volume of the tank/tanks is quite intruisive so it works in larger cars, especially where you can utilise a large center console to store one of the tanks but small cars ala Honda Jazz, Nissan Leaf etc are going to be really limited in range.
5. The actual Fuel Cell has degredation aspects to consider, whats the cost to replace one of them I wonder. I cant imagine it will be cheap
6. Thats just all new cars in general currently.

I'll reply in private to avoid spamming the thread with off-topic conversation.

 

[mb194dc]

Looks like things beginning to move more against BEV as their sales of collapse:

Stop the fixation on electric cars and give alternative fuels, like hydrogen, a chance in 2025 | Auto Express

Chris Rosamond explains why we should keep an open mind about future fuels

www.autoexpress.co.uk

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

Looks like things beginning to move more against BEV as their sales of collapse:

Stop the fixation on electric cars and give alternative fuels, like hydrogen, a chance in 2025 | Auto Express

Chris Rosamond explains why we should keep an open mind about future fuels

www.autoexpress.co.uk

"UK policy on hydrogen is that diverting any of the currently low global supplies of the genuinely ‘green’ stuff away from the furnaces of heavy industry to road transport would be inefficient use of a scarce low carbon resource."

I mean the Govt aint wrong in that aspect in terms of achieving net zero as a country, but of course the car magazine is saying that by not giving this option to car drivers is a bad idea cause "muh car, muh choice". Also I cant see people being happy of paying the equivalent of £15 per gallon in terms of equivalent costs vs an ICE car currently.

The UK has a LOT of things in terms of infrastructure to get right before some of these "Alternative" become even semi viable. Other countries need to ask the question, where are we going to source the amount of hydrogen we want to use that doesnt incur the 4-10x more cost per mile than current solutions. I can understand some increase but orders of magnitudes does NOT work.

 

[AusWolf]

"UK policy on hydrogen is that diverting any of the currently low global supplies of the genuinely ‘green’ stuff away from the furnaces of heavy industry to road transport would be inefficient use of a scarce low carbon resource."

I mean the Govt aint wrong in that aspect in terms of achieving net zero as a country, but of course the car magazine is saying that by not giving this option to car drivers is a bad idea cause "muh car, muh choice". Also I cant see people being happy of paying the equivalent of £15 per gallon in terms of equivalent costs vs an ICE car currently.

The UK has a LOT of things in terms of infrastructure to get right before some of these "Alternative" become even semi viable. Other countries need to ask the question, where are we going to source the amount of hydrogen we want to use that doesnt incur the 4-10x more cost per mile than current solutions. I can understand some increase but orders of magnitudes does NOT work.

That's the general problem with net zero, imo. The infrastructure is not ready for it, and even we suppose that it is, people can't afford it. We don't need grand ideas. We need stuff that works.

 

[Vayra86]

Exactly which is why I waited until 2017 to buy one. Same time my neighbor bought his AMG S65. AMG was a bit more money, quieter, slower and more plush. He averages 15 MPG, I charge at home mostly with two cross country trips averaging $25 a charge. Never a problem finding a charger and the car even tells me what chargers are busy, unlike his gas station roulette. Yes, It takes me 30 - 45 minutes to charge, but no time lost since we charge where we do other things, unlike his 10 minute loss every fill up. Battery replacement is looking like $8K at 250K miles in a few years, much cheaper than his ICE. Depreciation is also much greater on his AMG. The most telling thing is he has very low mileage on his AMG and drives his Prius to work while I have two around the country trips and 160K miles on mine. I won't go into his horrendous maintenance costs compared to my one headlight under warranty.

BEVs are the future, just a matter of education. Granted, not for all applications, just 90%.

I'm inclined to agree with you. At the same time I think the whole discussion regarding these new types of fuel is not going well. Its highly political and shouldn't be, just like the climate issue. A big influence making it political is of course a lobby from the fossil industry. But yeah just on facts... I can find BEVs now with over 600 km's of range, basically any long range version of existing models gets there. That's sufficient, and it eliminates the greatest issue for BEVs. Charging speed is already fixed, you can charge at 350kw chargers now and be gone again with 80% or more in just about 15 minutes.

China ain't gonna stop making those vehicles, and they're going to sell them.

We can't expect a similar push on the hydrogen front just yet; even though there ARE hydrogen cars. I do think we can use hydrogen though, and that brings us back to what we started off with: the discussion on new fuel types. There's a place for everything, or most things, perhaps even fossil still has its place; I think hydrogen is much better served in heavier types of vehicles, that can't store immense battery packs to accomodate the huge energy requirement.

That's the general problem with net zero, imo. The infrastructure is not ready for it, and even we suppose that it is, people can't afford it. We don't need grand ideas. We need stuff that works.

Net zero is a big illusion. We've not managed a net reduction globally on an annual basis one single time. Europe is seeing net reduction, a lot of other continents see increase.

 

[AusWolf]

Net zero is a big illusion. We've not managed a net reduction globally on an annual basis one single time. Europe is seeing net reduction, a lot of other continents see increase.

Not to mention under-developed countries need to boost their energy consumption (based on dirty fuels) to boost their production and economy to reach levels to even just be able to talk about net zero. Only with a good enough economy can one think of spending on reducing emissions, which unfortunately, is a luxury of a few. The rest of the world needs to think about more mundane issues, like food first.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Quick point...let's talk about history in as comical a way as possible.

How long is the "future" going to be the future? Let me put this out there, Top Gear Season 2, episode 9. At that point in the middle of 2003 (July 13th) Patrick Stewart was not killing the legacy of Picard, and the hydrogen skateboard, backed up with battery, was the future of motoring.


Note that Musk was by far not the first to propose something like this, that his primary step forward with the automotive industry was having government subsidies to build a huge battery plant and thus drive down the adoption costs for battery vehicle, and that the fun bit of all of this is that we literally are no closer to the future than when gas was about a dollar per gallon. Isn't it funny how the future is always a few years off...and the distaste for things like nuclear energy as a stop-gap can never get off the ground because there's always the promise of something just around the corner?
Be it hydrogen, or the next generation CPU, this forum always seems to have that problem of FOMO...and while we are waiting for the future things are only continuing along their current path.